There is a disparagement to the effect that “generals fight the last war”.
I consider that has been wrong (or at least nowhere near universal) for around a century – and largely because of the changes introduced to military methods during World War (part) One. In fact, the British Army during that conflict was more effective because of the lessons (see also here) it had learned after the Second Boer War (which was when Australia’s first foreign death of an Indigenous soldier occurred), and some improvements in medical treatment could be considered to date back to the Crimean War.
The Second Boer War also saw the use of civilian concentration camps by the British, as well as British use of “scorched earth” tactics, which date back to antiquity, but had also been used in the US Civil War by the side which was against slavery.
Nevertheless, there have been instances of failing to learn past lessons and adapt to change which justify use of the phrase – not only in military matters, but all areas of life.
This is a slightly different matter to the issue of learning lessons after accidents – for instance, the air industry has a saying to the effect that improvements have been paid for in blood, which is not quite correct given the deliberate research into transport safety matters that has occurred in the last century or so (see here, here, here, here, and here).
Nevertheless, the issue of resistance to implementing lessons or failing to adapt to, or being overtaken by, change is significant.
One fairly well-known example of that (from https://www.elon.edu/u/imagining/time-capsule/150-years/back-1870-1940/) is:
Sir William Preece, chief engineer for the British Post Office, 1878, as reported in “The Telephone in a Changing World” by Marion May Dilts:
“There are conditions in America which necessitate the use of such instruments more than here. Here we have a superabundance of messengers, errand boys and things of that kind … The absence of servants has compelled America to adopt communications systems for domestic purposes.”
(The article also gives examples of scepticism about telephones from US President Rutherford and Western Union.)
An example of change overtaking a development is the graceful (that’s not only my opinion 😊 ) Lockheed Constellation being made obsolete by the development of commercial jets.
To use a workplace example, someone I worked for years ago (this was around 15 years ago – he has been retired for years, now) was proud to tell his workers he spent two hours each week creating a card file record of technical papers and other information so he could find what was relevant for particular designs.
And in that time era, I, who had created a massive card filing system myself back in the 1980s and 1990s, was busy digitising my copies of technical papers so I could use modern digital search functions.
I enjoyed the skill of creating card systems, but that had become about as useful to everyday life as knowing how to care for, saddle, and ride a horse.
That leads into consideration of why people can be either actively resistant to, or passively overtaken by, change.
The former boss I mentioned was obviously proud of his skill . . . but so was I, and yet I changed.
Emotional intelligence / maturity (full disclosure: my day job is in engineering, which has had more than its fair share of social dinosaurs – which, I am glad to say, has been changing in recent decades [and to be clear: changing for the better] ) is an aspect of effectively responding to change, but lack of awareness of change, or lack of awareness of the implications and nuances of change, is another –which is a flaw I consider that former boss had.
I’ll come back to that, but I also want to acknowledge that there can be valid concerns about change (e.g., privacy and the Internet – which is something Bruce Schneier writes about quite well, IMO), safety and cars, and other areas.
There can also be resistance to change – in part, simply as a result of being overwhelmed, which is something Alvin Toffler’s book “Future Shock” addresses.
There is also resistance to change that arises from bigotry – such as resistance to the abolition of slavery.
On the other hand, there can also be over-enthusiastic adoption of “the new”, and this is where I want to start addressing my concerns about at least some worker advocates.
Now, there has been a focus on improving working conditions throughout history – for instance, the invention of tools (easier to dig with a shovel than bare hands . . . ), abolitionism (slavery is probably one of, if not the, worst forms of “work”), “reform” (abolition) of serfdom (e.g., see here and here), concerns about conditions in factories during the industrial revolution, and the last half century focus on safety – now including psychosocial.
There has also been a backlash throughout those times.
However, when mobile phones were introduced, my experience is that worker advocates failed badly, and agreed to their use without any objection – if anything, there seemed to be a focus on mobile phones as an excuse for extra payment (for extended “being on call”, and “out of normal hours” work) rather than being aware of and preventing the harm done to work-life balance. (The problem became even worse with the introduction of so-called “smart” phones.)
Why? Well, possibly because of:
- the struggle to make ends meet;
- the stereotypical male bias of the predominantly male representatives at that time (again, my experience is from engineering);
- a desire to be seen to be fair – which was actually not, IMO, appropriate;
- over enthusiasm for new tech (again, my experience is from engineering where too many seem to be focused on “new toys” / tech); and
- the issue of fighting the last war . . .
Working conditions had, at that time, several decades of a strengthening focus on the essential of physical safety – guarding rotating machinery, avoiding shifts that were long or too close together, and so on. In my home state, OHS regulations had just been introduced (with an at times pleasing level of support amongst elites), but everyone was still trying to work out what that meant, and what it would lead to.
Unfortunately, those trying to do the “working out” were predominantly male, and probably had no thought around housework, let alone psychological wellbeing (that’s a legacy we’re still seeing with a shallow and superficial focus on “friendship” in the workplace that fails to acknowledge the importance of support and intimacy).
Thus, to a stereotypical male of that era with someone at home to do the house work and the child rearing (yes, even in that era when mobile phones were being introduced!) having to take a few minutes out from watching “the little woman” look after the kids was not onerous … but to many, if not most people – including women in predominantly male professions, non-hetero couples, singles, and non-stereotypical males – it was.
In many ways, it was the next evolution of OHS.
This problem also crops up with regard to work from home (WFH).
The stereotypical male thinking focused on physical matters – desk at right height, “correct” style of chair, etc – but NO-ONE thought about the massive damage to psychological wellbeing of being compelled to sacrifice part of one’s home to how someone else demanded you set it up – even if it was contrary to what you wanted.
As an example of that, most modern offices are cold, unwelcoming and sterile to the point of being hostile; homes should be warm and welcoming, so who wants a piece of that hostile and sterile frigidity in WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SAFE, WARM AND WELCOMING??!!!
I cannot even get OHS reps to agree that the determination of a comfortable physical temperature in one’s home should be what the residents say is comfortable, not some idiot from a company who may have an addiction to warm weather.
However, it is the massive damage to psychological wellbeing that does the main damage – and that is compounded by the self-righteous arrogance and lack of awareness of those insisting on this.
What is wrong with those people?
Are they focusing on the lesser matters because they can do something?
Are they thinking – strangely, and quite wrongly – that employers can be forced to pay for the invasive changes (for young workers in particular, the changes could only be implemented if the young workers moved – are the bosses going to pay for that??!!!), or that WFH is not good and desirable?
Or do the other problems I’ve noted apply?
I’m sadly inclined towards personal flaws being an issue – largely because of the inadequacies I’ve encountered in workers’ reps over things such as ensuring LGBTIQA+ people are properly considered in the workplace – and the ineptness of the union I used to be in on this topic is one of the main reasons I left. That union, however, is not alone in that: I had a call recently from a union “peak body” where the woman calling me showed the same sort of lack of awareness – despite discrimination having been banned for decades in some cases (we even have had anti-discrimination protection for trans and gender diverse people at a national level since 2013) but still reps don’t even know basics.
Are they bigots, or are they still focused on fighting the last workplace war?
